why it matters
by John at 5/13/2005 01:59:00 PM
Why does it matter if we call it a civil war? Aside from the obvious issues of uncontrolled killing and other violence and the complete failure of the Bush administration's post-war planning, it is a yet another repudiation of the rationale for this unnecessary war.
1) Existence of WMD in Iraq: no WMD or meaningful WMD capability for either nuclear, biological or chemical weapons
2) Ties to Al Qaeda: no meaningful relationship to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist groups that threaten the USA.
3) Reduction in terrorist activity: The number of major terror incidents was at an all time high in 2004, and Iraq is now a training ground for future terrorists, drawn from a pan-national population angered by US hostility
4) Free and stable Iraq: we have freed the Iraqis from a brutal dictator, and delivered to them no security, a brutal war and an unstable nation
5) Stability and democracy in the Middle East: not any time soon, and the failure of our Iraq policy will never serve as an exemplar to other nations
Civil war, our failure in Iraq, also demonstrates the impracticality of the Neo-con vision of a peaceful American hegemony through the selective use of force. Instead, the practical limitations of our armed forces, the strongest in the world, have been put on display for all to see. If anything good is to come from this, it may be as a demonstration of the ultimate futility of war in the modern world.
-----
All things must come to an end, and the war in Iraq is no exception. When it is over, Iraq may be a democratic country, or another dictatorship, or a relatively peaceful failed state like Afghanistan. What is clear to me is that we cannot "win" over there, by the usual definition of the word. We are no longer in a position to control the situation. The outcome is not up to us.
This morning I was thinking about Vietnam. What if, in 1965 or 1966 after escalating the war, we had realized that we could not, would not win? If we had made the wise decision to pull out and lose gracefully, we could have avoided ten extra years of war, and some 45,000 more American men (and maybe millions of Vietnamese) might be alive today. Would the rest of the world be any different?
This applies, of course, to Iraq. What if we cannot win there? Some people think we have to stick it out until stability is eventually established. But why? For pride? For appearances? One day, stability will come to Iraq with or without our efforts. I think it is better to admit that we cannot win, and lose gracefully now before thousands more Americans die. If I thought it was within our ability to prevent a significant amount of violence in Iraq, I would advocate our continued involvement, but I believe that our presence in Iraq is more of an irritant than a salve. We have already taken our lumps for this hubristic folly - I don't see why we should continue to take a physical, political, and moral beating when we have already lost.
Update: maybe you want to read this - "The Reality Gap"
Why do our senior military leaders put out this "we can't be beaten" bilge? Because they are chosen for their willingness to tell the politicians whatever they want to hear. A larger question is, why do the American press and public buy it? The answer, I fear, is "American exceptionalism" the belief that history's laws do not apply to America. Unfortunately, American exceptionalism follows Spanish exceptionalism, French exceptionalism, Austrian exceptionalism, German exceptionalism and Soviet exceptionalism.
1) Existence of WMD in Iraq: no WMD or meaningful WMD capability for either nuclear, biological or chemical weapons
2) Ties to Al Qaeda: no meaningful relationship to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist groups that threaten the USA.
3) Reduction in terrorist activity: The number of major terror incidents was at an all time high in 2004, and Iraq is now a training ground for future terrorists, drawn from a pan-national population angered by US hostility
4) Free and stable Iraq: we have freed the Iraqis from a brutal dictator, and delivered to them no security, a brutal war and an unstable nation
5) Stability and democracy in the Middle East: not any time soon, and the failure of our Iraq policy will never serve as an exemplar to other nations
Civil war, our failure in Iraq, also demonstrates the impracticality of the Neo-con vision of a peaceful American hegemony through the selective use of force. Instead, the practical limitations of our armed forces, the strongest in the world, have been put on display for all to see. If anything good is to come from this, it may be as a demonstration of the ultimate futility of war in the modern world.
-----
All things must come to an end, and the war in Iraq is no exception. When it is over, Iraq may be a democratic country, or another dictatorship, or a relatively peaceful failed state like Afghanistan. What is clear to me is that we cannot "win" over there, by the usual definition of the word. We are no longer in a position to control the situation. The outcome is not up to us.
This morning I was thinking about Vietnam. What if, in 1965 or 1966 after escalating the war, we had realized that we could not, would not win? If we had made the wise decision to pull out and lose gracefully, we could have avoided ten extra years of war, and some 45,000 more American men (and maybe millions of Vietnamese) might be alive today. Would the rest of the world be any different?
This applies, of course, to Iraq. What if we cannot win there? Some people think we have to stick it out until stability is eventually established. But why? For pride? For appearances? One day, stability will come to Iraq with or without our efforts. I think it is better to admit that we cannot win, and lose gracefully now before thousands more Americans die. If I thought it was within our ability to prevent a significant amount of violence in Iraq, I would advocate our continued involvement, but I believe that our presence in Iraq is more of an irritant than a salve. We have already taken our lumps for this hubristic folly - I don't see why we should continue to take a physical, political, and moral beating when we have already lost.
Update: maybe you want to read this - "The Reality Gap"
Why do our senior military leaders put out this "we can't be beaten" bilge? Because they are chosen for their willingness to tell the politicians whatever they want to hear. A larger question is, why do the American press and public buy it? The answer, I fear, is "American exceptionalism" the belief that history's laws do not apply to America. Unfortunately, American exceptionalism follows Spanish exceptionalism, French exceptionalism, Austrian exceptionalism, German exceptionalism and Soviet exceptionalism.
» Post a Comment